EU
SECTION???
Into the unknown
Should we be afraid of nanotechnology? DG SANCO’s Vladimir Garkov, Laurent Bontoux and Philippe
Martin consider what is needed to continue making advances while building public trust in the area…
T
he products of nanotechnology are increasingly
present on the consumer market (eg. healthcare,
electronics, cosmetics, clothes), as well as in
industrial (eg. information technology, coatings, energy
technologies, automotive) and in medical applications
(diagnostics, targeted drugs, and regenerative medicine).
For example, nanoparticles are now being used in the
manufacture of scratchproof eyeglasses, crack-resistant
paints, anti-graffiti coatings for walls, transparent
sunscreens, stain- and odour-repellent fabrics, fillers in
tyres, food packaging, self-cleaning windows, and ceramic
coatings for solar cells.
As the number of nano-applications grows, the first signs
of public anxiety have appeared. The Roman historian
Titus Livius said that “we fear things in proportion of our
ignorance of them.” Understanding the nature of
nanotechnology and how to deal with it might help us
overcome our natural, very human phobia of the unknown.
‘ Consumer trust and
acceptance of emerging
technologies such as
nanotechnology are essential
for the development of new
consumer products and their
market uptake.
’
According to the latest available Eurobarometer survey,
Europeans do not perceive nanotechnology as risky;
rather, they support its development, perceive it as being
useful to society and morally acceptable. Moreover,
Europeans have far greater confidence in regulation than
their US or Canadian counterparts. For good reason. A US
investigation found that EU member states invested
nearly twice as much as the United States in research on
the potential environment, health and safety hazards of
nanotechnologies.
A study published in ‘Nature Nanotechnology’ in
September 2009 showed that nearly half of the people
surveyed were not familiar with nanotechnology, yet this
was not strongly associated with risk aversion. There is,
1
Public Service Review: European Union: issue 19
therefore, an opportunity for building public trust in
nanotechnology.
What is nanotechnology?
Whereas science is concerned with understanding the
way the world operates, technology emphasises the
development of something practical. Technology is often
defined as ‘applied science’. Like any other technology,
nanotechnology is the invention of new processes and
products with which we can improve quality of life.
A nanometre is one-billionth of a metre and around
1,000th of the width of a human hair. Nanotechnology
refers to manufacturing and engineering techniques
applied at nanoscale – the scale of atoms and molecules.
When particles get that small, they can acquire novel
properties. Understanding these properties is essential for
assessing the potential health and environmental risks,
and for developing ways to address them.
A safe and responsible development of
nanotechnology
Manufacturers and policy-makers alike are keen to ensure
the introduction of nanotechnology based on public trust.
In its 2004 Nanotechnology Strategy, the EU called for an
‘integrated, safe and responsible’ approach to the use of
nanotechnologies. Consumer trust and acceptance of
emerging technologies such as nanotechnology are
essential for the development of new consumer products
and their market uptake. There are other factors, though,
that influence consumer acceptance of new technologies,
such as the perception of risk-benefit ratios or
communication of uncertainty.
In light of the crucial significance of scientific knowledge for
the safe and responsible development of nanotechnology,
the European Commission has called on the independent
scientific committees of the European Union, starting as
early as 2003, to address some of the critical issues relevant
to the assessment of the safety of nanomaterials. As a result,
several opinions were adopted by the Scientific Committee
on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR),
by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) and
its predecessor the Scientific Committee on Consumer
Products (SCCP), and by the BIOHAZ Panel of the European
Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
SECTION???
The importance of nanotechnology – a European
Commission perspective
February saw Ireland’s Máire Geoghegan-Quinn sworn in
as European Commissioner for Research, Innovation and
Science, taking over from Janez Potoc̆nik of Slovenia, who
had held the post since 2004.
Potocnik oversaw a time of massive change in science and
research during his tenure, with the global community
moving beyond the ICT revolution of the 1990s to the
green revolution in the latter part of the last decade.
And as early as 2005, Potoc̆nik highlighted in his
action plan for nano-research the importance of
nanotechnology science, which he predicted would be at
the heart of European research for decades to come.
He stated: “Nanotechnology is one of the most promising
scientific fields. I would compare it to the impact of ICT
or biotechnology. Why? Because if you have one
breakthrough in nanotechnology you can use it across
sectors. And that’s why everybody, including Europe, is
working hard in the nanotechnology area.
“We see it as one of the most promising areas of
research which could very much influence our quality of
life, and influence global competitiveness.”
It is a sentiment that can be seen to straddle Potoc̆nik’s
tenure being as it is at the core of the last major policy
initiative he made as EU Commissioner. In July 2009,
Potoc̆nik announced three major public private
partnership opportunities for the private sector to work
with scientists across the European Union to develop
Nanomaterials and nanoparticles
Nanoparticles are incidentally produced by natural
phenomena like volcanoes, and by human industrial and
domestic processes such as cooking, and the use of
internal combustion and jet engines in our cars and
planes, which release huge numbers of nanoparticles into
the atmosphere. Nanomaterials that are engineered to
narrow specifications are novel.
investigation found that
‘ AEUUSmember
states invested
nearly twice as much as the
United States in research on
the potential environment,
health and safety hazards of
nanotechnologies.
’
Two types of nanostructures are usually considered when
dealing with the potential adverse health risks of
nanotechnology products: free nanoparticles and larger
objects containing nanostructures. The scientific
committees consider that it is persistent-free nanoparticles
and their aggregation into larger objects containing
nanopores, giving them a very large surface area, that
green technologies that will maintain Europe’s position at
the forefront of modern science thinking and application.
Speaking at a conference in Brussels, Potoc̆nik
highlighted the role PPPs could play in developing the
sustainability agenda for future generations when he
announced EU funds for the development of three
major facets of research: ‘Green Cars’, ‘Factories of the
Future’ and ‘Energy-Efficient Buildings’.
The money available, especially at a time of global
financial uncertainty, is impressive: €1.2bn earmarked
for research and development as part of the Factories for
the Future programme; €1bn dedicated to researching
energy-efficient buildings; and another €5bn made
available for research on the Green Car Initiative.
Constant throughout the development of policy that
ended with the announcement of the PPP projects, was
Potoc̆nik’s belief that clean technologies, biotechnology
and nanotechnology would be as crucial for the future
European economy as ICT was in the 1990s. He argued:
“The EU must not miss this opportunity. We have to be
the champion of the third industrial revolution; the
green revolution.”
Máire Geoghegan-Quinn now has the responsibility of
taking forward the scientific agenda for the European
Union. It is clear, given her predecessor’s strong
record, that nanotechnology will remain at the
forefront of European science and research. It is a
policy that could see the European Union lead the world
in scientific innovation.
require the most attention. The higher surface to volume
ratio is perhaps the single most important characteristic of
the products of nanotechnologies.
Exposure to nanoparticles
So far, inhalation is considered to be the main route of
human exposure to nanoparticles in view of how easily
they can become suspended in air. This is clearly the case
for the nanoparticles from non-intentional sources.
Furthermore, nanoparticles undergo numerous changes
both in the environment and in the human body that
affect their impact and fate. Some of those changes are
summarised in Fig 1.
After deposition in the lungs, a fraction of the
nanoparticles may be translocated to other organs such as
the liver, spleen and possibly to the foetus in pregnant
women. There is also evidence that nanoparticles from
diesel exhaust entering the nose can reach the brain.
The rapidly increasing use of manufactured nanoparticles
in consumer products, in particular cosmetics, is likely to
increase human exposure through skin and ingestion.
The release and dissemination of nanoparticles may occur
through air, water and soil, thus exposing species living in
any environment.
Public Service Review: European Union: issue 19
2
SECTION???
Fig. 1: The potential changes in nature of a nanomaterial due to the surrounding media
Measuring the nano-hazard
In order to be able to assess potential risks of nanoparticle
exposure, it is necessary to understand the relationship
between the dose of exposure and its potential effects.
There is knowledge and methods on how to do this for the
large number of chemicals in use. The question is whether
these methods developed for chemicals in general are
applicable to nanoparticles.
‘ Regulators must control that
what industry says is true.
Scientists must develop the
methods and knowledge to be
used by industry. Regulators
and consumers must remain
critical but open-minded to be
able to reap the benefits from
nanotechnology.
’
The SCENIHR considers that, in general, existing
methodologies are likely to identify the hazards linked to
the use of nanoparticles, even though they exhibit different
properties than the same material without nanoscale
features. However, validation of these methodologies for
testing nanoparticles is still needed and modifications in
current methodologies will probably be necessary to
improve their accuracy and applicability to nanoparticles.
Work to that end has already started, in particular under
the auspices of the OECD. Given the indications that
nanoparticles could migrate from the lungs to other
organs, the SCENIHR emphasises the need to develop
3
Public Service Review: European Union: issue 19
quantitative assays that could determine the presence of
nanoparticles in different tissues of the human body.
The dose, a singular case by case issue
One particular issue linked to nanoparticles is how to
characterise the dose. For standard substances,
expressing the dose as a mass of substance per unit mass
or unit volume is sufficient. For nanoparticles, several
parameters are needed to describe the dose and those that
are most significant can be different in different
situations, depending on the type of material, the type of
test matrix or other conditions.
The SCENIHR has also recognised that the behaviour of
nanomaterials and their biological effects is largely
determined by what adheres to their surface. Therefore,
for risk assessment, good knowledge of their intentional
and unintentional coatings is necessary besides a full
characterisation of the ‘raw’ nanomaterial.
For all those reasons, the scientific committees recommend
a case by case approach to the assessment of potential risks
linked to nanomaterials. In view of the dearth of data and of
the work still needed on methodology, assessing the
numerous nanomaterials coming out of technological
development will take a long time.
Current scenarios
What is, then, the certainty that the products of
nanotechnology are safe? Manufacturers have a legal
obligation to ensure that the products they put on the
market are safe, but how can we control this safety, and
reassure the public?
SECTION???
Three cases emerge:
■ Industry
is transparent about its use of
nanotechnologies. In this case, either the applications
are non-controversial (eg. miniaturisation of computer
chips, development of novel materials, nanomedicine)
or they are (eg. nano-size food supplements, nanosilver in socks);
■
■
Industry puts products on the market that contain
engineered nanomaterials but does not advertise it;
Industry claims that it does not put products on the
market that contain engineered nanomaterials but is
suspected by consumers of doing so.
In the first case, controversial applications can be easily
identified and assessed case by case.
In the other two, the lack of credible information about
which products contain nanomaterials, and the safety
testing done on them, has led to speculation and fears that
industry is hiding information about potentially negative
impacts. The challenge is to bring more transparency so
as to build trust among stakeholders.
The 3rd Nano Safety for Success Dialogue conference,
organised by the Directorate-General Health and
Consumers last November, was a small step in this
direction. On that occasion, industry representatives
spoke about four ‘nano-products’ currently on the market:
TiO2 in sunscreens/cosmetics; nanoparticles in paint;
carbon nanotubes in paints and materials; and nanosilver
in textiles. Those who were most open elicited the most
questions, but also generated the most trust amongst
stakeholders. The event concluded with a call for a series
of small-scale focused conversations.
Critical period
To complicate matters, some scientific studies are hyped
in the media, with headlines like one in ‘Popular Science’
recently: ‘China Reports the First Human Nano-Fatalities.’
In the age of instant and constant information, it is
difficult to communicate credible information on
controversial and emerging issues with the potential to ‘go
viral’. If repeated enough, false perceptions may hold even
if the reported information is inaccurate.
We have reached a critical time window, which makes or
breaks nanotechnology. Now is the time for building
public trust. This requires efforts from all parties:
industry, regulators, scientists and consumers. Industry
must demonstrate the safety of its products. Regulators
must control that what industry says is true. Scientists
must develop the methods and knowledge to be used by
industry. Regulators and consumers must remain critical
but open-minded to be able to reap the benefits from
nanotechnology.
Minimising risks and building trust
■
Easily available information about the nano-products
on the market;
■
Understanding of the risk assessment process and of
the uncertainty associated with it;
■
Involvement of civil society in policy-making through
open dialogue and analysis of the risks and benefits of
nanotechnology.
The European Commission has been at the forefront of
tackling these issues. In addition to launching a strategy
in 2004 and an Action Plan in 2005, it was at the origin of
the work by the independent scientific committees. It
launched the Nano Safety for Success Dialogues,
commissioned studies on the market availability of nanoproducts and prepared a review of how EU legislation is
equipped to deal with nanotechnology (Commission
‘Communication on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials’,
17th June 2008).
This review concluded that overall, the current EU
legislative framework ‘covers in principle the potential
health, safety and environmental risks in relation to
nanomaterials.’ However, it added that ‘current legislation
may have to be modified in the light of new information
becoming available, for example, as regards thresholds
used in some legislation.’
Commission initiatives have triggered responses from the
European Parliament, which called for further reviews of
all relevant legislation and for the implementation of the
principle ‘no data, no market’ for all applications of
nanomaterials in consumer products.
In conclusion, the science-based approach to risk
assessment and to policy-making, combined with a
continuous dialogue with the public, is crucial for building
trust in nanotechnology.
Vladimir Garkov
Scientific Committee Management Officer
Tel: +32 2 29 66 559
[email protected]
Laurent Bontoux
Principal Administrator
[email protected]
Philippe Martin
Principal Administrator
[email protected]
Directorate General for Health and
Consumers (DG SANCO)
European Commission
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_
consumer/index_en.htm
Consumer confidence and public trust in nanotechnology
depend on several interconnected elements:
Public Service Review: European Union: issue 19
4